False News

                Well, that’s just “false news.” In recent months people of all political persuasions embraced the phrase “false news.” It is a rather convenient way to degrade someone else’s thought in a discussion or argument. After all, what can you say in reply? The information you just put out has been dismissed as false, untrue, fabricated, unreal, or misleading. The person branding your information as “false news” is now free to disregard what you’ve said. After all, none of us believe things that are patently false. Even the talking heads on broadcast media bandy the phrase about rather recklessly. And, as with many phrases that come and go in popular vernacular, the problem lies in a lack of specificity, which we often embrace as a useful tool. However useful this tool may be for avoiding serious discussion, at its core, it remains an accusation of untruth.

                “False news” is not news. Merriam Webster defines news as, “a report of recent events,” or “previously unknown information.” Both definitions imply a foundation in veracity. “False news” by definition is an oxymoron. “False news” is a phrase normally used to avoid calling someone opinionated, a propagandist, or liar. Easy access to the internet, polarization of the body politic, the growth of advertising income streams for internet sites have led to the development of alternative-media which specialize in “false news.” Alternative-media has been around since the advent of the printing press. We just recognized it as the propaganda it was and well educated people did not place their faith and trust in such sources. In recent months such outlets exploited the lack of accountability found in social media platforms, such as Facebook. They lurk in the largely unregulated terrain of the internet. More traditional media outlets, print and broadcast, work hard to maintain a fairly high level of veracity not only to maintain reader and viewership, but also to avoid costly entanglements in court battles over libelous statements. If we wish to understand the world we inhabit, make wise decisions daily, and leave a moderately well-functioning society to our progeny, we must eschew “false news” as deleterious to our personal and national well-being. The problem with avoiding such inputs is that it requires hard mental work.

                Many claim that all media is untrustworthy and that they all have an axe to grind. And while each outlet does have an editorial voice, all respectable news sources largely confine such things to their editorial pages. There are good, reliable sources out there. In fact, most of the well-known outlets are trustworthy. In their editorial sections they more freely display opinion; however, in their news section they take reasonable care to focus on the facts of an event or issue and are by in large trustworthy. Well-educated and well-reasoned individuals, recognizing the peril of “false news” eschew such outlets that primarily traffic in propaganda and innuendo. Instead the frequent those sources that offer complete information. They do so knowing that hard work involved in developing a good understanding of any issue. It takes time and effort to understand an issue. There are very few simple issues of note. Most are multifaceted. Many involve different groups with competing interests. All challenge our ability not only to understand, but also to develop an appropriate response. We find it easier to let someone else decide for us. Plowing through a detailed article to reach a reasonable well-grounded understanding takes time and frequently challenges our preconceptions.

                “False news” takes advantage of our inherent laziness. Those who traffic in such propaganda count on our unwillingness to make an effort to get down to the facts of an issue. They appeal to our prejudices, biases, and narrow-mindedness. “False news’ appeal lies in the easy reinforcement of our previously held opinions. After all, why take the time to read, research, and understand the facts of an issue when I can simply click on a link which takes us to a place where we confirm what we already “knew.” And this is the true perniciousness of such sites as traffic in “false news;” they erode our ability to make those well-reasoned, but difficult decisions, a society must make if it is to move forward. By conditioning us to rely on propagandistic proclamations instead of the mental effort required to understand the reality of our world, they emasculate the electorate leaving us easy prey for those who tell us what we want to hear. If we wish to successfully address the challenges we face, we must wean ourselves from this slothful intellectual torpor and again embrace the mental rigor required to carefully examine issues and consume news. 

Positional Respect

                Recently while skimming various social media postings I’ve noticed a trend. I often read statements bemoaning the lack of respect for the president. They usually include some sort of language which admonishes those who complain, instructing them to at least respect the office of the president. And, as one who took an oath to protect and defend the constitution and as a Christian who takes similar admonishments in Romans and Peter seriously, I concur. We must approach the office and our elected leaders with an appropriate level of respect no matter the boorish behavior or the occupant. I expect my students to treat me with a base level of respect; especially on those, hopefully rare, days when my actions or lack of preparation may not warrant admiration. This positional respect helps society function smoothly during minor instances of sub-par behavior. However, this positional respect does not require that I condone everything a particular leader does or says.

                In fact, my respect for an office might require that I say something about unacceptable behavior. As an officer in the Army I could face loss of rank, pay, or status, due to “conduct unbecoming an officer.” There is a similar rule for Non-commissioned officers. These rules served as a catchall for those behaviors which brought disgrace to the service. They also served as a reminder to all of us that the privileges we enjoyed due to our rank came with additional responsibilities. One of those responsibilities was to help our fellow officers or NONCOMs by pointing out unacceptable behaviors before they became serious. I knew officers whose careers foundered simply because they stood by and watched while fellow soldiers misbehaved. They did nothing to intervene. After the dust settled their chain of command held them culpable simply for letting things happen. We all understood the message clearly, “you are your brother’s keeper.”

                In a like fashion I cannot in good conscience sit idly by and watch, hands folded, while something significantly wrong takes place. I must, with respect, say something. I fully understand that my small voice from the western reaches does not carry much weight. The efficaciousness of my voice does not matter; that I act does. I am, as a Christian and an officer, required to use the tools at hand to agitate for justice, for right behaviors, for those things that redound greatness on the high office of president and on to our country. Keeping my mouth shut while misbehavior occurs is not an option available to me. I do not advocate becoming a gadfly. But raising my voice in protest of misconduct is not disrespectful.

                When our president fails to uphold the high standards that attach themselves to the high office, we must respond appropriately. Attaining the Oval Office does not provide one with a shield from criticism. The White House is one made of glass. The occupants are on public display and are accountable to the public for their actions and pronouncements. We fail our President and our Republic when we allow them to conduct themselves inappropriately. We are a check and a brake and must attend to those duties with diligence.

                I have also noted that some of those who now bitterly complain of disrespect spent the last eight years heaping scorn upon our previous president. Many of them regularly spoke darkly of his lack of citizenship, embracing and forwarding blatant lies. I find this current clamor for respect rather hollow and ironic; perhaps even hypocritical. Respect for our leaders, yes. Respect for the office, yes. Condoning misbehavior through silence and inaction, no.